I oftentimes hear people discussing Iconography and teasing the west for their 'sloppy/heretical iconography' and I was just curious as to what the differences are really between eastern and western Iconography? What elements are proper Icons supposed to have? What elements do both the western and eastern type of Icons have? I know that Iconography is definitely a very serious practice--more complex than just painting pictures willy-nilly. Back when I was a catechumen, and we were looking for an Icon of my patron St. Augustine--who's more of a western Saint--I asked my Priest why we couldn't just get a Roman Catholic western Icon or painting of him, and he laughed and told me that Iconography is Sacramental and must follow very important guidelines. So what exactly are these guidelines and how exactly are Icons supposed to be painted? When judging an Icon, what factors am I supposed to judge them by? What am I looking for? Why is western Iconography so 'heretical' or 'sloppy' as many people describe them?

I oftentimes hear people discussing Iconography and teasing the west for their 'sloppy/heretical iconography' and I was just curious as to what the differences are really between eastern and western Iconography? What elements are proper Icons supposed to have? What elements do both the western and eastern type of Icons have? I know that Iconography is definitely a very serious practice--more complex than just painting pictures willy-nilly. Back when I was a catechumen, and we were looking for an Icon of my patron St. Augustine--who's more of a western Saint--I asked my Priest why we couldn't just get a Roman Catholic western Icon or painting of him, and he laughed and told me that Iconography is Sacramental and must follow very important guidelines. So what exactly are these guidelines and how exactly are Icons supposed to be painted? When judging an Icon, what factors am I supposed to judge them by? What am I looking for? Why is western Iconography so 'heretical' or 'sloppy' as many people describe them?

Firstly, some clarification is necessary before I can give a proper answer:

By "western iconography", what do you mean by this? Icons of Orthodox saints of the pre-schism west? Images painted in an abstracted, non-realistic style associated with iconography painted by non-Orthodox artists? Naturalistic paintings depicting saints and feasts, which emerged in the Orthodox world in around the 17th century, and became predominant in orthodox churches and homes over the next three centuries?

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

I like pre-renaissance western icons. They resemble eastern icons more but yet retain that typical western flavour:

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

I like pre-renaissance western icons. They resemble eastern icons more but yet retain that typical western flavour:

That is a beautifully-executed painting, but it would not qualify as an Orthodox icon. It is almost photo-realistic, three-dimensional, with elements casting shadows, and using linear perspective, which roots it firmly in the earthly, temporal world.

Icons, with their flatness of composition, their elongation of bodily proportions, their inversion of linear perspective, their non-naturalistic abstracted portrayal, and absence of casting shadows, attempt to express what is not of this world - the timeless, the spiritually perfected, the heavenly.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 07:53:57 AM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

But you take the Byzantine tradition and use it to measure everything else, it just doesn't work like that. Ancient Coptic and Syriac icons probably violate every byzantine canon in the book as well but that doesn't make them any less of an icon (in fact, compared to Coptic icons the Byzantine ones are 'photorealistic' and 'rooted in the temporal world'). Coptic or Latin* icons are just rooted in a different, but equally ancient and venerable traditions.

*Baroque paintings are not icons

PS: anyone notices how my post count says "leet"?

« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 08:06:24 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

But you take the Byzantine tradition and use it to measure everything else, it just doesn't work like that. Ancient Coptic and Syriac icons probably violate every byzantine canon in the book as well but that doesn't make them any less of an icon (in fact, compared to Coptic icons the Byzantine ones are 'photorealistic' and 'rooted in the temporal world'). Coptic or Latin* icons are just rooted in a different, but equally ancient and venerable traditions.

None of the established historic iconographic traditions are photorealistic. Coptic icons are indeed very different in appearance to Greek or Russian icons, but they are, in their own way, stylized and abstracted, and make little attempt to replicate earthly realism. The painting of St Thomas Aquinas makes little, if any, attempt to portray what is not of this world.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

But you take the Byzantine tradition and use it to measure everything else, it just doesn't work like that. Ancient Coptic and Syriac icons probably violate every byzantine canon in the book as well but that doesn't make them any less of an icon (in fact, compared to Coptic icons the Byzantine ones are 'photorealistic' and 'rooted in the temporal world'). Coptic or Latin* icons are just rooted in a different, but equally ancient and venerable traditions.

None of the established historic iconographic traditions are photorealistic. Coptic icons are indeed very different in appearance to Greek or Russian icons, but they are, in their own way, stylized and abstracted, and make little attempt to replicate earthly realism. The painting of St Thomas Aquinas makes little, if any, attempt to portray what is not of this world.

But you take the Byzantine tradition and use it to measure everything else, it just doesn't work like that. Ancient Coptic and Syriac icons probably violate every byzantine canon in the book as well but that doesn't make them any less of an icon (in fact, compared to Coptic icons the Byzantine ones are 'photorealistic' and 'rooted in the temporal world'). Coptic or Latin* icons are just rooted in a different, but equally ancient and venerable traditions.

None of the established historic iconographic traditions are photorealistic. Coptic icons are indeed very different in appearance to Greek or Russian icons, but they are, in their own way, stylized and abstracted, and make little attempt to replicate earthly realism. The painting of St Thomas Aquinas makes little, if any, attempt to portray what is not of this world.

Is there evidence that these aspects are inherent in the theology of images, or were these particulars articulated after the council? It's been a while since I've read up on the council, but I seem to remember the focus being mostly on the veneration of images and that the definition of an image was fairly broad.

I don't doubt that there were similar stylistic characteristics, but can you point to some writings that indicate a holy image had to have certain properties in order to be worthy of veneration?

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying